I think that we can assume that Oly never actually decreased the
performance of a lens when switching to MC. The color balance may
certainly have changed on a least some lenses. Since later coating
technology and MC allowed the designers more control over color
response, we may assume they thought they were improving color. Tastes
vary, and others may disagree.
However, there are other factors confounding any answer.
1. The is inevitably some variation from lens to lens in the original
production. Even with unlimited funds, Chaos theory guarantees variation.
2. The lenses we have almost all have been used for many years, even
decades. This means bumps, thumps, wear, dirt, etc. and all this may
have an effect on performance.
3. For all we know, even the coatings may have changed subtly over the
years.
4. Although we may assume that the result of 2. and 3. will be poorer
performance, it may occasionally improve performance.
5. Nobody ever has published tests of enough indentical lenses when new
to define the range of normal performance even when new.
6. Other factors I haven't thought of tonight and others will likely
bring up.
Well, you get the idea. As a generalization, one may pretty safely say
that later MC designs should preform as well as or better than their SC
predecessors. And that most or all of the improvement will be in areas
related to reduced reflections, flare, contrast and effective speed (T
stop). When dealing with a few particular used lenses, the only
solutions are:
1. Just don't worry about it if the images come out as desired and expected.
2. Do as you have and go through several lenses to pick the best.
Note: The above only partially applies to the 'standard' 50/1.8 and 1.4
lenses, where the known evolution of optical design and coatings is more
complex.
Moose
gordross@xxxxxxx wrote:
>Hi Moose:
>
>While we're on the topic, what is the consensus on these lenses?
>
>Most (all?) are SC but is that the biggest factor. I think Jim said that he
>found his older lens 'warmer'. The coating may be more critical for wide
>angle lenses subject to flare in some lighting conditions, although even
>with my 21/3.5 I never ever experienced a problem. I have had 4 of the
>Lettered Z's, a 21/3.5, 24/2.8, 100/2.8 and 300/4.5 all are not only
>immaculate but in 2 cases, the 24 and the 100 I chose them over the MC's
>that I had, keeping them and selling the MC's. Are 'we' being too quick to
>dismiss them? I think in some cases the 'buzz' about coatings may not be the
>first or second criteria for choosing a lens. What is the real experience
>out there? If you are of the opinion that the MC are superior, I'd like to
>know, when and how?
>
>Gord
>
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|